With the rise of cancel culture, it’s something that’s got me curious, why are so many works (music, literature, tv shows, etc.) no longer separated from their controversial makers? Is it purely to do with money (e.g. not wanting to give money to people you don’t agree with?) and what about controversial people who are dead? They don’t gain anything, so why isn’t the art separated from the artist? What’s your opinion on this topic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago* (11 children)

So explain it then. Explain to me what he meant by ‘common good’?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    I mean even defining what is the "common good" is political and that is the point of the exercise. If art exists that is deemed bad for society then we tend to ban it. For example, there are people who define CSAM as art, but the cost to society is so great we don't allow even the possession of such material.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Why would I continue to waste time engaging in a respectful and interesting conversation with you when you're insistent on redefining my own comments and others' definitions solely so it fits within your own defined idea of politics? You're not engaging in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 week ago* (8 children)

    I’m asking you a simple question. If you can’t explain it, fine, but don’t pretend you know what you’re talking about.

    All art is political. That doesn’t mean it is created with the purpose of being political

    That’s bullshit. Not all art was made for the purpose you define as political, and not all art achieves that aim either

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    The existence of art is political. The ability to create art is political. The freedom to create art and have a voice is political.

    I already said that not all art is created with the purpose of being political. That doesn't mean it's existence isn't political.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Ok, but to be called ‘political’ do you agree that art must either have been created political, or serve a political purpose?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Explain how it can be political without either being created political or serving a political purpose?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    The existence of art is political. The ability to create art is political. The freedom to create art and have a voice is political.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Art is one way we relate to or communicate with each other. It is inherently political.

    Hannah Arendt, in her work The Human Condition, redefines politics as the space of appearance where individuals, through action and speech, reveal their identity and participate in the construction of the common world. For Arendt, politics is not merely an institutional activity but the manifestation of human plurality and the capacity to initiate something new.​

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment